Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 DeathReaper wrote:
What rules take Rapis Fire away from the Boltgun? (None do, you guys have agreed on that fact).

The fact that the DA banner says that the bolter is Salvo means that it is not Rapis Fire/Salvo.
It does not say that it's Salvo plus whatever it was before.

You're making a leap unsupported by rules. You have yet to show how being told that a bolter is Salvo actually means its Rapid Fire/Salvo.

You have that backwards, Nothing takes away the Rapid Fire type.

We know weapons can have two types.

Nothing takes Rapid Fire away from the bolter, the banner just states that the weapons are Salvo 2/4

Therefore the weapons have two types.

No leap. Fully supported by the rules.

Just like enfeebled unit treats all terrain as difficult, that just adds a type, so impassible terrain would be impassible and difficult. Though you could not move through it, because one of those two types restricts movement altogether.

It's not being added, it's been treated as, that is a very different thing.

 DeathReaper wrote:
We know weapons can have two types.

When explicitly spelled out.

Nothing takes Rapid Fire away from the bolter, the banner just states that the weapons are Salvo 2/4

Are Rapid Fire and Salvo the same thing?

Therefore the weapons have two types.

And there's the leap. Because specific weapons conflict with the BRB and have multiple types, you're asserting that this one does too despite never being told that.

You're told that the weapon is Salvo. You are not told to add Salvo the the weapon, or that the weapon gains Salvo in addition to its other types.

The weapon is not Rapid Fire while within 6" of the banner, it is Salvo.

It tells us that when it tells us to treat the boltguns as salvo 2/4 thereby adding the Salvo 2/4 type to boltguns.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It tells us that when it tells us to treat the boltguns as salvo 2/4 thereby adding the Salvo 2/4 type to boltguns.

Since when does "is" mean "add"?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It tells us that when it tells us to treat the boltguns as salvo 2/4 thereby adding the Salvo 2/4 type to boltguns.

Since when does "is" mean "add"?

When there is nothing tanking away the base type.

Since when does "is" mean "only"?

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It tells us that when it tells us to treat the boltguns as salvo 2/4 thereby adding the Salvo 2/4 type to boltguns.

Since when does "is" mean "add"?

When there is nothing tanking away the base type.

Since when does "is" mean "only"?

Since ... always?

If something is A then it is not A+B. Pretty much by definition.

ninja'd.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It tells us that when it tells us to treat the boltguns as salvo 2/4 thereby adding the Salvo 2/4 type to boltguns.

Since when does "is" mean "add"?

When there is nothing tanking away the base type.

Since when does "is" mean "only"?

Since ... always?

If something is A then it is not A+B. Pretty much by definition.

Things can have two types...

A Psycannon is Heavy 2.

A Psycannon is also Assault 2

A Pistol is a shooting weapon. a Pistol is a melee weapon...

Both if those have explicit permission. Gee - it's like I didn't already know they exist.

Where is your explicit permission? You've failed to show it. Please do so or concede.

The permission has been posted, ignore it if you wish, that does not mean it is not there.

The weapons are Rapid Fire Agreed?

We treat them as salvo Agreed?

Nothing says the weapon Loses Rapid Fire Agreed?

 DeathReaper wrote:
The permission has been posted, ignore it if you wish, that does not mean it is not there.

Please link the post, or cite the explicit permission. It doesn't exist. Your failure to show explicit permission is noted.

The weapons are Rapid Fire Agreed?

Normally, yes. That is, outside the 6" range of the banner.

We treat them as salvo Agreed?

Which means they are Salvo.

Nothing says the weapon Loses Rapid Fire Agreed?

It. Doesn't. Need. To.

You're making the unsupported assumption that it keeps Rapid Fire.
The banner changes the weapon to Salvo. We know this because it says to treat the weapon as Salvo. It does not say to treat the banner as Salvo in addition to Rapid Fire, or any other combination of words that would allow the type to be additive. Your argument breaks Lash Whips and Whip Coils, among other things. Mine breaks nothing. In order to break the fewest amount of rules your argument cannot be correct.

The weapons are Rapid Fire. Page 56 tells us this.

Ignore that if you wish.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The weapons are Rapid Fire. Page 56 tells us this.

No, the weapons are Salvo. The DA codex tells us this. The DA codex does not tell us they are Rapid Fire/Salvo.

Ignore that if you wish.

I've ignored nothing. Thank you for conceding.

The weapons are salvo as per DA, and they are Rapid Fire as Per the BRB.

Weapons can have more than one type.

Having Salvo does not over ride any other type because nothing says it looses any of its current types.

Permission shown, Do not ignore it this time.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The weapons are salvo as per DA, and they are Rapid Fire as Per the BRB.

Incorrect.

Weapons can have more than one type.

When given explicit permission.

Having Salvo does not over ride any other type because nothing says it looses any of its current types.

Incorrect.
You have a boltgun. You read a rule that says your boltgun is now a bolt pistol.
Can you shoot past 12"? Can you fire twice under 12"?

Permission shown, Do not ignore it this time.

I've ignored nothing. You still haven't shown explicit permission to have both types.
Again, your interpretation breaks the rules at least twice. That means it cannot be correct.

So "treats as" means "treats as only"?

Yes or no.

Edit: Another easy example: Does "place within" mean "place fully within"?

Can you not see how you are creating a restrictive statement from an open one?

Treat as an exhaustive list of options does mean treat as only.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Treat as an exhaustive list of options does mean treat as only.

So you disagree with yourself, and Enfeeble does make impassable terrain passable? (by treating is as Difficult - an exhaustive list of options, apparently)

Any chance of consistency of argument?

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It tells us that when it tells us to treat the boltguns as salvo 2/4 thereby adding the Salvo 2/4 type to boltguns.

Since when does "is" mean "add"?

When there is nothing tanking away the base type.

Since when does "is" mean "only"?

OMG... Are we really debating the definition of "is"???? Are we back to the Clinton-Lewinsky days??? Good grief... This thread has gotten so circular, I'm dizzy... Rigeld, You have made excellent points and I agree with you 100%. A few others want to assert things that aren't written in the rule and they seem to be pretty adamant about their faulty reasoning. Isn't there some old saying about debating a certain type of person and how that makes you look? I'm done with this thread since I don't want to start to appear like them... Cheers! :-)

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Treat as an exhaustive list of options does mean treat as only.

So you disagree with yourself, and Enfeeble does make impassable terrain passable? (by treating is as Difficult - an exhaustive list of options, apparently)

Any chance of consistency of argument?

I don't really care about enfeeble, RAW yeah, you can enter impassable terrain. RAI and HIWPI no.

Ah, so that is a complete volte face from your previous position? The one you stated so vociferously in another thread, and earlier in this thread, when I asked you to show the difference between the two "treats as" statements and you claimed "context"? (without being able to ever point to the specific context deciding phrase, either)

Again: you have posited that "treat as" is "treat as only". Page and paragraph as to why that is the case will suffice, or concede

I showed you the examples where it can only mean is.
Read them or don't, at this stage you're arguing because you need to be right not because you are.

Think you added an additional "not" in there

Please retract your (at a guess, assuming you werent writing complete gibberish) impugning of my character that you made. I am arguing because I am correct, or have an honest impression that I am, and not for any other reason. Go sling your mud elsewhere.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So "treats as" means "treats as only"?

Yes or no.

No, not always. I will not agree with such a broad statement.

Edit: Another easy example: Does "place within" mean "place fully within"?

Can you not see how you are creating a restrictive statement from an open one?

 DeathReaper wrote:

Things can have two types...

A Psycannon is Heavy 2.

A Psycannon is also Assault 2

A Pistol is a shooting weapon. a Pistol is a melee weapon...

Wait...

Codex GK explicitly states: "A psycannon can either be fired as a Heavy or an Assault weapon" (p. 58, bottom left)

As for pistol, a pistol is only one type: Pistol
and weapons with the "Pistol" type are Assault 1 that also count as being a ccw during assault. (brb, p.52, top left)

Couple dumb questions:
-----
Consider a R24-S4-AP5-Salvo 2/4 weapon (checking with the brb while writing):
1. If moving, it fires 2 shots up to 12", right? (first number, half range)
2. If stationary, it fires 4 shots up to 24", right? (second number, full range)
3. It can not fire less than the pointed shots, right? (number of shots is equal to etc, p.52, bottom left)

Now, consider a Boltgun, wether it moves or not:
4. It fires 2 shots up to 12"
5. It fires 1 shot from 12 to 24"

Finally, let's consider a Boltgun within 6" of a Standard of Devastation, therefore "treated as" Salvo 2/4
6. If you move and fire 2 shots at 12", are you treating it as Salvo2/4? Yes (incidentally, it overlaps with the rapid fire mode of firing)
7. If you stand still and fire 1 shot at 24", are you treating it as Salvo2/4? No, you are firing too few rounds.
8. If you move and fire 1 shot at 24"", are you treating it as Salvo2/4? No, you are ignoring the part stating that moving models fire half range.

No, it is not a poor position if that is the correct reading of the rules. This is RAW, not rules-to-make-thegame-work

Very pertinent example - during 5th, prior to a late edition FAQ, Shrike COULD NOT infiltrate with a unit without the infiltrate USR on their profile.

This made his rule entirely non-functional, yet was the absolute 100% accurate rules-as-written.

During 4th edition C: SM Terminators did not have an armour save, as they did not have the wargear "Terminator Armour". Was this silly? Yes, of course it was. Was it wrong, from a strict rules stand point? No

So please, stop arguing "broken consequences" here.

You will not agree that "treat as" always equals "treat as only" , so when *does* it become the restrictive latter statement? When do you know it is a replacement as opposed to an addition?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rigeld - enfeeble was not directed at you. There is a reason I was quoting Liturgies, who has made a complete volte face and is now trying to pretend otherwise

Nos, you said
"You will not agree that "treat as" always equals "treat as only" , so when *does* it become the restrictive latter statement? When do you know it is a replacement as opposed to an addition?"

We know it is a replacement- "treat X as Y" because that is actually what the rule says, To imply that it means "treat X as X/Y" is assuming something that is not actually written. Your argument becomes RAI instead of what the rule actually says.

Rig can you use a Bolt Pistol to make Overwatch shots?